Gujarat Court June 2006 Judgments
Rajkumar Wd/O. Kishanchand Rochiram Khanchandani Vs. Dy. Food and Civi ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-29-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Guj9
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.1. The present is the application filed by the widow of Shri Kishanchand Rochiram Khanchandani, challenging the action of the authorities (respondent No. 1) of rejecting the request of the petitioner to transfer the licence for sale of kerosene, which existed, in the name of her deceased husband, who died on 9th August 2004.2. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner made an application on 24th January 2005, which is produced at Annexure 'D' to this petition. Respondent No. 1 herein requested to transfer licence No. AR/252 which was in the name of her husband, who died of cancer on 9th August 2004. It was also mentioned in the application that she has three sons and one daughter, all of whom were supported by the income derived from the business carried under the said licence, that the petitioner has no income, earlier an application was made for transfer of licence in the name of her son, Pankaj, which was rejected, that the s...
Tag this Judgment!Jayendrakumar N. Bhatt Vs. State of Gujarat and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-28-2006
Reported in: (2007)2GLR1351
Jayant Patel, J.1. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner as well as respondent No. 3, both, are holding plots in one Shanti Niketan Cooperative Housing Society Limited situated at Rajkot. The petitioner is having the plot admeasuring 207.46 sq. mtr., whereas Respondent No. 3 is having plot No. 3, which was originally measured as 243.78 sq. mtr. The grievance of Respondent No. 3 is that there is a shortage of the area admeasuring 20.43 sq. mtrs. It appears that initially Respondent No. 3 had approached the City Survey Inquiry Officer for measurement and the orders were passed, against which the matter was carried before the District Collector and the District Collector, on 6.12.1994 by partly allowing the appeal, had remanded the matter to the City Survey Superintendent. It appears that thereafter the City Survey Superintendent, vide order dated 29.8.1995, rejected the application of Respondent No. 3, because Civil Suit No. 1326 of 1987 was already preferred by Respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Ruxmaniben Wd/O Ambalal Fakirchand and 6 ors. Vs. Bipinkumar Lallubhai ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-23-2006
Reported in: (2007)1GLR764(GJ)
M.R. Shah, J.1. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners heirs and legal representatives of deceased Ambalal Fakirchand - mortgagee in possession, who also claimed to be tenant under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as S 'the Act' for convenience) have challenged the legality and validity of the judgment and order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dtd. 27/3/1990 in Revision Application No. TEN/BA/247 of 1982 in allowing the said revision application and quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) (Appeals), Ahmedabad dtd. 21/10/1981 in Tenancy Appeal No. 414/111/9/75 and restoring the order passed by the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal ('ALT' for short), Sanand in Tenancy Case No. 2020 of 1975.2. The dispute is with regard to the land bearing Survey No. 2033 admeasuring 3 Acres and 27 Gunthas of land situated at village Sanan...
Tag this Judgment!Makboolhusen Razakmiya Maniyar and anr. Vs. Bank of Baroda and 4 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-23-2006
Reported in: [2007]136CompCas523(Guj); [2007]75SCL527(Guj)
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.1. The petitioners are before this Court praying that - Para 18(B) - Be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to hold that, considering the provisions of the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interests Act, the petitioners who are borrowers and who had never given the property being Flat No. C/201, Zamzam Apartment, First Floor, Patel Falia, Hathikhana, Fatepura, Baroda, as security to the respondent No. 1, the respondent No. 1 and 2 have no right or authority to take any action under the provisions of the Act and further be pleased to hold that, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have no right or authority to take possession of the Flat of the petitioners under the provisions of the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interests Act(Emphasis Supplied).Besides, the petitioners have prayed various other reliefs, as Para 18, the prayer clause, consists of, as m...
Tag this Judgment!Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-22-2006
Reported in: (2006)3GLR2204
D.A. Mehta, J.1. Today, all these applications have been heard and the following order was made:The substitution applications are allowed. Reasons will follow.Accordingly, the reasons are recorded hereinafter.2. All these applications have been filed by different companies seeking substitution of the name of the respective applicant-company in place of Gujarat Electricity Board in the captioned Special Civil Applications and Letters Patent Appeals arising from respective Special Civil Applications. The applicants herein are seeking substitution in place of the original respondents in the main petitions as well as in the Letters Patent Appeals. Admittedly the Letters Patent Appeals have been filed on 20.01.2005 wherein the appellant is shown as Gujarat Electricity Board. The appeals are against common judgment and order dated 17.12.2004 rendered by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.1038 of 2004 and cognate matters. The respondents herein are the original petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Madhukant Pranlal Shah Vs. Bank of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-22-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Guj14; I(2008)BC468; [2007]138CompCas715(Guj); (2007)2GLR1300
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.1. Present is the petition filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by order dated 08.03.2006 passed by the Presiding Officer of Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Delay Condonation Application No. 451 of 2004. The Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, after hearing the learned advocates, was pleased to condone the delay of 7 days, but the application filed by the present petitioner praying that the Tribunal should waive the Court Fees payable on an appeal, was rejected. The petitioner was granted one month's time to deposit the Court Fees.2. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that an application was filed for stay of the recovery proceedings before the Recovery Officer. That application was rejected. Against that order, an appeal is filed. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that on such appeal, no Court Fee is payable. The learned advocate submitted that it is no doubt true that the appeal is filed under the provisions of Sect...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat and 2 ors. Vs. Dattu Raghu Vanzari
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-21-2006
Reported in: (2007)1GLR33
R.M. Doshit, J.1. The appellant-State Government has preferred the present Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment and order dated 19th March, 1991 passed by the learned Single Judge in the above Special Civil Application No. 7823/1989.2. The respondent (hereinafter referred to as, the delinquent) was, at the relevant time, serving as a Police Sub-Inspector under the Commissioner of Police, Baroda city. On 22nd October, 1986 while on duty he was absent from his posting and was found in inebriated condition. A criminal prosecution was lodged against the delinquent for offences punishable under Sections 66(1)(B), 85(1) and 85(3) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The delinquent was prosecuted in Summary Case No. 4832/1986. By judgment and order dated 27th August, 1987 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vadodara the delinquent was acquitted of the aforesaid charges. Since his acquittal in criminal case, a disciplinary proceeding came to be initia...
Tag this Judgment!Sadiyabhai Titiabhai Ninama and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-21-2006
Reported in: [2007(114)FLR188]; (2007)1GLR711
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner No. 1 is father and the petitioner No. 2 is son. They have filed this petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and prayed that the respondents be directed to retire the petitioner No. 1-Sadiyabhai Titiabhai Ninama voluntarily from service on medical ground and to grant all admissible retiral benefits with interest. They have also prayed that the petitioner No. 2 son of the petitioner No. 1 be directed to be appointed on compassionate ground as per Railway Board Scheme and under Section 47 of the Disabilities Act, 1995 [Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Fult Participation) Act, 1995].2. Petitioner No. 1-Sadiyabhai Titiabhai Ninama belongs to Schedule Tribe. He was born on 1-6-1955. At a young age of 20, he was appointed as Police Constable in R.P.F. with effect from 27-3-1976. Later on he was promoted as Head Constable and when he was about to be further promoted to the higher post, unfortun...
Tag this Judgment!Mayurkumar Jayendrabhai Patel Vs. Dy. Collector and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-20-2006
Reported in: (2006)3GLR2252
D.N. Patel, J.1. This petition has been preferred against the order dated 24th January,2006 passed by the Deputy Collector (Annexure SD to the memo of the petition) as well as against the order dated 16th June,2003 passed by the Deputy Collector (Annexure S to the memo of the petition).2. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 16th June,2003 passed by respondent No. 1 was never served upon petitioner and, therefore, could not preferred an appeal within a period of 90 days under section 32-B of the Bombay Stamp Act,1958 (hereinafter referred to as Sthe Act,1958).3. It is also vehementally submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the order passed by the Deputy Collector (Annexure SE to the memo of the petition) is absolutely a non-speaking order. No reasons have been assigned and straightaway conclusion has been arrived at by respondent No. 1. Learned advocate for the petitioner has also relied upon several judgments delivered by this Court wh...
Tag this Judgment!J. Patel Ramabhai Joitaram and anr. Vs. Jashvantbhai Narayanbhai Vyas ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-17-2006
Reported in: (2006)2GLR1804
Jayant Patel, J.1. The short facts of the case are that the petitioners are claiming tenancy right over the land in question for pursuing their application under Section 32PP of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as Sthe Act). It appears that initially there were proceedings under Section 32G of the Act and vide order dated 13.7.1961 the Agricultural Lands Tribunal and Mamlatdar, Vijapur declared that the sale was ineffective and the land was placed for disposal under Section 32P of the Act. The appeal was preferred to the Deputy Collector, Mehsana being Tenancy Appeal No. 290/1963 by the petitioner and on 6.11.1965 the appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded. It appears that against the said decision of the Deputy Collector, the revision was preferred by the landlord before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal being Revision No. TENBA-172/66 and the said revision was allowed in favour of the landlord vide order dated 27.6.1966. It appears that the te...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »